{
  "id": 1597065,
  "name": "In The Matter of the ESTATE OF Baudilio BOWLES, Deceased. Pete VIGIL, Tony Vigil, Art Vigil, Polly Trego, Isidro Vigil, Marie Vigil and Jane Salls, heirs of and successors in interest to Julianita B. Vigil, Deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Delfina BOWLES, Personal Representative of the Estate of Baudilio Bowles, Deceased, Defendant-Appellee",
  "name_abbreviation": "Vigil v. Bowles",
  "decision_date": "1988-11-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 10927",
  "first_page": "739",
  "last_page": "741",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "107 N.M. 739"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "764 P.2d 510"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.M. Ct. App.",
    "id": 9025,
    "name": "Court of Appeals of New Mexico"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 52,
    "name_long": "New Mexico",
    "name": "N.M."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "75 Pa. 220",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Pa.",
      "case_ids": [
        1036706
      ],
      "year": 1874,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/pa/75/0220-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "97 N.M. 773",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        1555117
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/97/0773-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "174 A.L.R. 319",
      "category": "reporters:specialty",
      "reporter": "A.L.R.",
      "year": 1948,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "103 N.M. 2",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        711264
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/103/0002-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "73 N.M. 347",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.M.",
      "case_ids": [
        5321639
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1963,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nm/73/0347-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 344,
    "char_count": 5127,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.772,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.548619437958278e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4879172492295883
    },
    "sha256": "4549c691c14cc14221f55c8064d2143c8f0255b9d599463fbe364c7efe15e808",
    "simhash": "1:ead1c5f674543259",
    "word_count": 856
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:42:54.316311+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "DONNELLY, C.J., and HARTZ, J\u201e concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "In The Matter of the ESTATE OF Baudilio BOWLES, Deceased. Pete VIGIL, Tony Vigil, Art Vigil, Polly Trego, Isidro Vigil, Marie Vigil and Jane Salls, heirs of and successors in interest to Julianita B. Vigil, Deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Delfina BOWLES, Personal Representative of the Estate of Baudilio Bowles, Deceased, Defendant-Appellee."
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "OPINION\nALARID, Judge.\nPlaintiffs appeal the trial court\u2019s orders: 1) granting defendant summary judgment and denying their own motion for summary judgment; and 2) construing the testator\u2019s will as devising to plaintiffs\u2019 deceased a life estate in a portion of the income from real property owned by testator. Our calendar notice proposed summary affirmance. Plaintiffs have timely filed a response to proposal for summary affirmance. Defendant has timely filed a memorandum in support of proposed summary affirmance. Not persuaded by plaintiffs\u2019 memorandum, we affirm the trial court.\nIn construing a will, the court must attempt to give effect to the testator\u2019s intent. Gregg v. Gardner, 73 N.M. 347, 388 P.2d 68 (1963). The testator\u2019s intent should be ascertained from the instrument itself. In re Estate of Kyreazis, 103 N.M. 2, 701 P.2d 1022 (Ct.App.1984); NMSA 1978, \u00a7 45-2-603. Technical rules of construction should be resorted to only if the language of the will is ambiguous or the testator\u2019s intent is for any reason uncertain. Gregg v. Gardner. The parties agree that the testator\u2019s will is clear and unambiguous.\nIn paragraph 6.2 of his will, the testator devised to his sister, the plaintiffs\u2019 deceased, \u201cone-half of any income, rents or profits from any real property ... located in Bull Creek (Valle del Toro) or Colonias, New Mexico____\u201d Plaintiffs argue that the above devise manifests a testamentary intent that plaintiffs\u2019 deceased receive one-half of the real property in fee simple. Plaintiffs rely on the rule, \u201c[A]n absolute gift of the income of realty, in the absence of anything to indicate a contrary intention, passes the realty.\u201d 4 W. Bowe & D. Parker, Page on the Law of Wills \u00a7 33.21 (1961). See Annotation, Grant or Gift of Income as Carrying an Absolute Interest in the Property, 174 A.L.R. 319 (1948).\nBut a contrary intent appears in this case. The will contains a residuary bequest in which testator left to his children, if his wife predeceased him, \u201c[M]y interest in any real property owned by me at the time of my death, which I inherited from my family, located in Bull Creek and/or Colonias, San Miguel County[.]\u201d There is no dispute that the property described in this provision is the same real estate referred to in the bequest to Julianita Vigil.\nPlaintiffs attach significance to the fact that the gift to the testator\u2019s children was a residuary bequest. The devise to the children was by its terms \u201cin addition to those given and devised under Article VI herein[.]\u201d But that language does not mean that the bequest to Juanita Vigil must be construed as broadly as possible. Rather, we look for a reasonable construction that reconciles the provisions devising the property. See In re Estate of Martin, 97 N.M. 773, 643 P.2d 859 (1982).\nTo construe the residuary bequest to the children as of only one-half the fee is to ignore the plain words of the will. But the bequests to Julianita and to the children can be reconciled if the fee estate is devised to the children and the bequest to Julianita is given its natural interpretation of simply one-half of the income, and nothing further. \u201cIf a gift of income, is followed by a gift over of the corpus of the property, such gift over shows that the gift of income was not intended to pass the entire property.\u201d Page on the Law of Wills, supra, \u00a7 33.21.\nBy the same token, the devise to the children implies that the devise to Julianita was only a life estate. It would be unreasonable to infer that the testator intended Julianita and her heirs to continue to receive one-half of the income from the property in perpetuity. Such an arrangement could readily lead to serious complications in future management of the property. The trial court correctly construed testator\u2019s intent as devising to Julianita a life estate in a portion of the income from real property left by testator in determining that title to the realty vested in testator\u2019s children.\nThe construction of the devise to Julianita as a life estate in the income is also consistent with what the will provides in the event the testator\u2019s wife survived him. The will states that she would receive \u201cthe remainder of all property over which I have the power of testamentary disposition.\u201d It does not require a strained construction to include within that \u201cremainder\u201d the ownership interest in the Bull Creek or Colonias property, subject to Julianita\u2019s life estate in the income. See In re France\u2019 Estate, 75 Pa. 220 (1874).\nCONCLUSION\nThe orders of the trial court are affirmed.\nIT IS SO ORDERED.\nDONNELLY, C.J., and HARTZ, J\u201e concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "ALARID, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James V. Noble, Jr., Santa Fe, for plaintiffs-appellants.",
      "Thomas A. Simons, IV, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "764 P.2d 510\nIn The Matter of the ESTATE OF Baudilio BOWLES, Deceased. Pete VIGIL, Tony Vigil, Art Vigil, Polly Trego, Isidro Vigil, Marie Vigil and Jane Salls, heirs of and successors in interest to Julianita B. Vigil, Deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Delfina BOWLES, Personal Representative of the Estate of Baudilio Bowles, Deceased, Defendant-Appellee.\nNo. 10927.\nCourt of Appeals of New Mexico.\nNov. 1, 1988.\nJames V. Noble, Jr., Santa Fe, for plaintiffs-appellants.\nThomas A. Simons, IV, Santa Fe, for defendant-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0739-01",
  "first_page_order": 781,
  "last_page_order": 783
}